Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I would hate to see it go away and not be brought back or see the person who moved it withdraw it. I think it's a discussion worth having and a question worth deciding.
As long as we're going to decide the question with a vote at the next meeting, I'm satisfied that we can move on with the meeting today. I just want reassurance that we'll have a discussion and a vote at the next meeting.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Absolutely, we will, and a discussion. I think that's important to make sure we all fully understand everything here.
Is everybody okay with that?
Mr. Dhaliwal, we're going to receive that motion and hold it—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
—and then we'll come back for a full discussion and a vote at the next meeting, if it's admissible.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Yes, I know. I'm just trying to finish the thought before I lose one of these screens.
We will have that discussion then, if that's okay.
Go ahead, Ms. Gray.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just curious why this motion would have been approved and is being acted on in other committees. The concern is that if other committees have already gone through this process, we're not setting a new precedent here, so what is the issue?
One option is to agree to this, and then if there is an issue down the road and we find something that isn't admissible or that needs to be amended, we can make an amendment at that time, rather than having to go through all this again. It sounds like we have a lot of consensus here with our group.
I suggest we vote on this and say this is the direction we want to go. If we find some issue with it, we can always make an amendment of some kind.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I certainly would prefer to hold it and fully understand it. We still have some additional work to continue today. Sometimes at committee we don't always do things correctly, and we want to make sure we are doing them correctly.
You have Mr. Dhaliwal, who wants now to withdraw it and he doesn't have unanimous consent, so I think it all deserves a separate hour in discussion and debate. If I were to say to you that it was inadmissible, I would have to feel strongly that it would be inadmissible. I would not come back and say it was inadmissible if I did not have a full background to say why. Then the other committees would have to look into what they've done and maybe correct themselves; I don't know.
If we could move on and adopt the routine motions as amended today, we could move on to the next part of our agenda for today's meeting.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I have a point of order, Chair.
There was another motion by Mr. Dhaliwal, and then there was a concern raised by Mr. Arya. We haven't dealt with those yet. Are they just going away? What's going on with them?
4:15 p.m.
The Clerk
I think Mr. Hoback wanted to point out that some members have expressed some reservations about the routine motions and they had something they wanted corrected or amended. Since all the motions have not been adopted yet, they are open for debate; they are open to be amended.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Dhaliwal, as Mr. Hoback said, you had moved two different things. Would you please repeat them?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Yes, Madam Chair.
On the time for the opening remarks, I would suggest that the witnesses be given five minutes for their opening statements, and that at the discretion of the chair during the questioning of witnesses....
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tracy Gray Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I wouldn't be supportive of that. I think there is good value in hearing from our witnesses; that's the whole purpose of their coming to testify. Lots of time they give technical information and statistics. They're giving a lot of information, and sometimes five minutes is just not enough time to fulfill that.
We could, depending on the number of witnesses, potentially look at taking a couple of minutes off their time if there is a huge number, but having the normal amount of time I think would be the normal and preferable protocol, especially since this committee has only sat once since March. Surely there are a lot of witnesses who have a lot of new information to give us after that amount of time.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Chair, what we've done in the past, I think fairly well, is that whenever a minister came, it was always 20 minutes, and 10 minutes was always the norm. If there was a vote or something that shrank the committee, then the vice-chairs got together with the chair and decided what the appropriate time was to get those witnesses on the record.
It's very important, though, that they have their 10 minutes to get their exact points across to us in an efficient manner, because that's why they're there and that's why they're putting all sorts of resources into creating their presentation for us.
I can't support this motion. I agree with Ms. Gray, but I also trust the vice-chairs and the chair if they need to adjust something once in a while. They should have the freedom to do that.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
Picking up on what Mr. Hoback was saying, provided that the committee give the chair discretion, I think I would be comfortable with that. Perhaps instead of setting a specific amount of time, we could leave it to the discretion of the chair.
I would also note, in connection with our previous discussion on a previous topic, that other committees have also shortened the amount of time for witnesses. I believe PROC did this recently, so it would be consistent with what other committees are doing, but in light of the valid points the members of the Conservative Party raised in their conversation, perhaps we can simply make it at the discretion of the chair.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm sorry, I can't go with that.
Again, you're asking someone to present in front of the committee. They need to know how much time they're going to have, and 10 minutes is a consistent time frame. If you say that it's at the call of the chair, then it puts the chair in a really bad position in trying to balance the needs of her party—and she is not really neutral—and what is right, and she will always be under the accusation that she's stacking the committee or that she is doing things to benefit the Liberal Party instead of being the chair. I think that's why it's important that you have it nailed down at 10 minutes.
As I said, if there is a unique scenario, then the chair and the vice-chairs should talk about it and proceed as they see best, but you have to have the vice-chairs involved in that conversation.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Madam Chair, I have a couple of points here.
One, I would ask if that is a formal motion that Mr. Dhaliwal is presenting and whether it is in order.
I'd be interested to hear from Mr. Dhaliwal, because he's been around as long as I have and as long as Mr. Hoback and certainly you. I'd be interested to hear why, all of a sudden, after 12 years in Parliament, he thinks witnesses should present for five minutes.
I know that if I have recommended somebody as a witness for a committee, and they're talking about something technical as a producer or a processor in regard to trade, to me it's only respectful—especially if they've come from far away to Ottawa—to give them more than five minutes.
That's my point. I think the unwritten rule is that you as chair have discretion when you're trying to fit in a committee report or a study. When we get down to crunch time, you can tighten things up, but I think the point here is that I'd like to understand from Mr. Dhaliwal why, all of a sudden, he feels that it needs to go to five minutes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Yes, please, Madam Chair.
The way I see it is that this will give all the members more time to ask particular questions that witnesses will be able to address instead of them giving just their opinion. In practice it's also very important that the committee members from all parties have the ability as the time comes to make sure they're able to utilize their time to ask their questions and hit the particular points they want to address. That's the way I was thinking.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Mr. Dhaliwal has moved a motion that the time be reduced from 10 minutes to five minutes. We need a vote on that.